The sentence she received was, very technically, legally fair. But only because it was legally available. And there is no doubt that a Black Male, even the same civilian she killed, would not have been treated so leniently. Frankly, it is troubling how much the Guilty Verdict very likely resulted from the fact that this was one of the few cases where a relatively demographically diverse jury was made available. Apparently this is a thing that does not occur as regularly as one might imagine due to TX' rules on juror eligibility and the disproportionate rates minorities wind up with disqualifying CRs.
I believe your understanding of Texas' rules and practice on jury selection is incomplete; in practice, it is very difficult to tailor a jury through race-based strikes. The Dallas jury pool is very diverse, as is the makeup of Dallas County's judiciary.
It is a reasonable finding that race based strikes can and do happen. But no, it really is down to the available pool. I understand that the Dallas based pool seems diverse if you are comparing it to, say Tyler or Lubbock. But as with most major metros, minorities --blacks in particular-- are disproportionately winnowed out. This happens as there is a outmoded practice of removing prospective jurors on the basis of prior convictions. Again, this is something that effects Blacks disproportionately.
Very likely, this was not a deliberately racist policy in most theoretical sense. However, we need to be careful with that, and not allow this to be cause for complacency. Where it becomes something that can be viewed as a racially divisive policy is the fact that there is no push to correct this.
Indeed, we have a situation where cognitive dissonance allows people to pretend it is somehow not an issue in play.
As it pertains to this matter in particular, the overwhelming odds are that a white jury would not have convicted her. Given the obvious malice in se
nature of her actions, this should be deeply concerning to you. It is to me.
If you can articulate the participants in this entire affair for whom "tragedy" is not a reasonable description, I'd love to hear it.
As for my perspective (since you apparently include me in the group who are "fine with something like this happening so long as the issue is quickly forgotten about"), let us be clear: there is nothing "fine" about the murder.
Such an odd thing to say.
(Did I get the quotes right? The old software handled those much better)
Your quotings are fine.
And this is not as odd a thing as you may think.
People having a conversation will tell you all manner of things about themselves and their outlooks, even if they offer no facts or details.
The term tragedy
is very strongly passive to begin with. And when we assert that it applies to everybody involved, the violence of the event is diffused further still.
For the criminal involved, it obviously was no such thing for her; if it were, she would not have chosen to complete these actions.
Functionally, it is a term for insurance companies. It denotes a belief that a given event is accidental, and worse yet, unavoidable. This case is not only neither of those things, but the observable nature of that is quite frank.
Tragedies get some thoughts and prayers. Crimes and faults get effort at solving.
I do not tell you how to phrase things or even make suggestions. But there are certain drops that are actually very
reliable channel markers where peoples' intentions and beliefs are concerned.
This is why I stay away from using terms like that in times like this. I am (perhaps dimly) aware that expressing my own belief that this woman is something this world can easily and happily live without is not exactly ambiguous. Indeed, it can be argued that my sentiments where she is concerned are judgmental as hell. This is fine since I feel it is better to come off like that than it is to pretend that she is not emblematic of a major problem this country is facing.
Constructions of thought matter, and I do get that no one is perfect in this regard. This is why up-thread I referred to someone as a racist --not for the first time-- because of how they articulated their favor for the issuance of forgiveness issued by the victim's younger brother. I do not, per se, disagree with the exact thought they are issuing. But how that thought was constructed was obviously and vibrantly angry as hell. And it was far too poorly assembled to be deliberately manipulative. So while I do believe that user's comment is sincere, it is also a strong rationalization for strongly contradictory outlooks.
I am good with standing by this because things said in that passive of a voice while simultaneously misusing strongly emotive terms is a tic that almost all strongly racist people also have.
Anyway, that was very long winded, and not as focused as I intended. But I did feel it was important to touch on why it was that I have taken the exceptions I did.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."